US Political News and Trump’s China visit

Just watched the May Figure. Food Inflation Index is higher on a Year on Year (YoY) term, it was 2.2% back in May 2024 and now is 2.9, and that's before all the Tariff cooling period expire, you are looking at around 15% overall increase in inflation if the only deal done was with the UK. Well, either that or he eat his word.

The European is laughing all the way to their bank when they know what they just need to do is to ignore Trump.
You're absolutely right that food inflation has climbed from 2.2% to 2.9% year-over-year, which definitely raises concerns. And I think you make a solid point about how tariff expirations and limited trade deals could put further pressure on prices.

Also, with Trump’s so-called “90-day, 90-deals” pause on reciprocal tariffs set to expire on July 9th, there’s real potential for the trade war to return to the forefront. How Trump responds is anyone’s guess, some believe he’ll escalate, others think he may act unpredictably out of frustration over the limited results so far. A middle-ground possibility is that he extends the deadline, which might save face politically, but wouldn’t protect the economy or consumers. As the Fed Chair recently told Congress, he’s unable to lower interest rates while tariff-related inflation remains a concern.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


I fully support the 1973 War Powers Act, but the problem is that the resolution, as it stands, has no real teeth. It lacks a clear definition of what constitutes “hostilities” and doesn’t provide a mechanism for Congress to compel a president to withdraw troops if the law is violated. That’s precisely why every president since 1973, Democrat or Republican has found ways to sidestep it, claiming it doesn’t apply to their specific actions.

So, when Chuck Schumer makes statements about reining in executive war powers, it rings hollow, especially when everyone knows Senator Thune won’t lift a finger to move meaningful legislation, even if he personally supports the idea.

If we’re serious about restoring constitutional balance, we need more than talk, we need to rewrite the War Powers Resolution. Tighten the language. Clearly define “hostilities” and “armed conflict” to eliminate gray areas. Add automatic funding cuts when deployments aren’t approved. In short, establish real consequences.

Endless, prolonged wars have deeply contributed to the $37 trillion debt trap we’re in today. Enough is enough.
 
While it maybe too early to say, Zohran Mamdani, could have changed US politics tonight. This could be South Asian, and especially Muslim American’s “Obama Moment”; finally to be seen as just like other Americans by the National consciousness.


@RabzonKhan Mamdani is the kind of change I have been saying all this time the democrat party has needed.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


And before anyone says Muslims aren’t treated differently, they should listen to lived experiences of Muslims, that just want to be treated like everyone else, and still live by their faith, in the most basic ways.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

From the election results, it’s clear that Zohran Mamdani has the momentum and is likely to secure the Democratic nomination. But what really worries me is the general election. Mamdani could end up facing not just Mayor Adams and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa, but also Andrew Cuomo and Jim Walden, both potentially running as independents, with Walden being a former Democrat. While it’s not confirmed that Cuomo will run, he has publicly suggested it’s a possibility.

That means four of the five major candidates would be splitting the Democratic or left-leaning vote. It’s a troubling scenario that could tip the outcome in favor of the right, even in a city as progressive as New York.

I only lived in NYC for a couple of years, from 2009 to 2011, but I still care deeply about the city. I made great friends there, and it's one of the most important cities in the U.S., not just culturally and politically, but also as a financial hub, since our stock markets are located there. This race could have wide-reaching implications.

That’s just how I see it, but I’d really like to hear your perspective, especially since you live there.
 
From the election results, it’s clear that Zohran Mamdani has the momentum and is likely to secure the Democratic nomination. But what really worries me is the general election. Mamdani could end up facing not just Mayor Adams and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa, but also Andrew Cuomo and Jim Walden, both potentially running as independents, with Walden being a former Democrat. While it’s not confirmed that Cuomo will run, he has publicly suggested it’s a possibility.

That means four of the five major candidates would be splitting the Democratic or left-leaning vote. It’s a troubling scenario that could tip the outcome in favor of the right, even in a city as progressive as New York.

I only lived in NYC for a couple of years, from 2009 to 2011, but I still care deeply about the city. I made great friends there, and it's one of the most important cities in the U.S., not just culturally and politically, but also as a financial hub, since our stock markets are located there. This race could have wide-reaching implications.

That’s just how I see it, but I’d really like to hear your perspective, especially since you live there.
Zohran can set the Obama-esque tone of “Hope and Change” and hopefully with the support of Brad Lander, a seasoned New York official, as comptroller, they can effectively navigate the political and human landscape of the city, towards a more affordable city.

There is a lot of nostalgia amongst many democrats for the era of Obama.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
Also, with Trump’s so-called “90-day, 90-deals” pause on reciprocal tariffs set to expire on July 9th, there’s real potential for the trade war to return to the forefront. How Trump responds is anyone’s guess, some believe he’ll escalate, others think he may act unpredictably out of frustration over the limited results so far. A middle-ground possibility is that he extends the deadline, which might save face politically, but wouldn’t protect the economy or consumers. As the Fed Chair recently told Congress, he’s unable to lower interest rates while tariff-related inflation remains a concern.
That is the issue, market need stability, if we don't know what is going to be on July 9, no one is going to import anything to the US, because you can't import something that may jump in the middle of the month or maybe completely resolved by the end of the month, and you can't stabilise the market if it in itself is uncertain, and considering 90% of US consume are from overseas, that's a very big issue.
 
this is outrageous..the only thing this does is make people not want to sell..instead turning into slumlords...and exacerbating the housing shortage.

Homeowners Face a Stiff Penalty for Staying in Their Homes Too Long—a Hidden Home Equity Tax


Millions of American homeowners are sitting on a hidden tax burden they never planned for—one that threatens their hard-earned home equity and, at the same time, is tightening the nation's already strained housing supply.

Today, roughly 1 in 3 homeowners—nearly 29 million households—have built up more home equity than the federal capital gains tax exclusion for single filers protects when they sell their primary home, according to a recent analysis by the National Association of Realtors®. By 2030, that number is expected to grow to 56% of homeowners.

Most people don’t think of their home as a taxable investment. It’s their nest egg, future college fund, or inheritance for their kids. But an outdated federal rule, left unchanged since 1997, means the longer you stay and the more your home appreciates, the more likely the IRS will claim a cut when you finally sell

This home equity tax has big consequences. It erodes family wealth right when people need it most. It discourages older owners from downsizing or moving closer to care. And it keeps larger, family-sized homes off the market, fueling the inventory crunch that’s driving up prices for everyone.

Why the home equity tax exists​

The roots of this growing problem stretch to 1997, when Congress rewrote the rules for taxing homeowners’ profits from selling a primary residence. Before then, the process was complicated and frustrating: Sellers could defer paying capital gains taxes if they bought a more expensive home, but they had to keep decades of receipts and faced a tax hit if they ever wanted to downsize.

“It was a compliance mess,” says Evan Liddiard, the NAR's director of tax policy. “You had to keep track of the first home that you bought and every improvement in every home over the course of a lifetime to show how much gain you ultimately had.”

The 1997 change fixed that headache. It gave homeowners the freedom to exclude up to $250,000 in profit if single, or $500,000 if married and filing jointly, every time they sold a primary home with few strings attached.

The simplicity was key: For most people, the exclusion was so generous that meticulous record-keeping was no longer necessary—and it opened the door to using their home equity to help fund retirement, pay for medical care, or support their kids’ education.

But there was one major oversight: Congress never linked those exclusions to inflation, and now, homeowners are paying the price.

In the decades since, home prices have climbed more than 260%, while the tax exemption has stayed exactly the same. If it had kept pace, the cap would now be about $660,000 for individuals and $1.32 million for couples, according to research from the University of Illinois Chicago.

Who’s most exposed​

The financial shock isn’t spread evenly. While nearly 1 in 3 homeowners nationwide is already at risk of a surprise capital gains bill, those hit hardest are the owners who’ve stayed put the longest—especially in states where home values have soared the fastest.

Hawaii tops the list. About 79% of homeowners there could be affected by the $250,000 exclusion limit, with an average capital gain over the exclusion of more than $409,000 per household. Washington follows closely, with nearly 65% of owners at risk. By comparison, West Virginia and Mississippi see the least impact, with less than 8% of homeowners potentially exposed.

And the dollar impact is just as lopsided. Nationwide, the average potential federal tax bill for over-the-limit homeowners is about $35,000. But in Hawaii, the average homeowner who surpasses the single-filer cap has an additional $409,346 in gain at risk of taxation.

When considering the higher joint-filer exclusion, exposure remains significant: Nearly half of Hawaii’s homeowners and about 31% in California could get hit. In Wyoming, the average homeowner over the joint limit could see nearly a half-million dollars exposed to taxation—the highest in the nation.

e32edee2373062e6594e173c99bc9a1ew-c3731590295srd-w629_q80.jpg

These figures highlight a hard truth: Homeowners in the most competitive markets—the same places where first-time buyers already struggle—are sitting on equity they can’t unlock without paying a steep price, keeping homes off the market where supply is needed most.

The capital gains cliff: Real money, real pain​


For middle-class Americans, the real pain isn’t just the dollar figure, but the ripple effect on how families plan, retire, and pass down wealth.

Most homeowners built equity the old-fashioned way, by staying in place and paying down a mortgage over decades. But those who’ve followed this tried-and-true advice have now grown their equity so high that cashing in on it can seem more like a penalty than a reward.

“This really is a tax on home equity,” says Shannon McGahn, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer of the NAR. “And without that tax being indexed for inflation, it’s increasingly hitting the middle class and older homeowners harder than most.”

Instead of tapping that equity to age comfortably or assist the next generation, many owners now feel forced to keep it locked up until they pass away, because if they hold on to the house, heirs receive a stepped-up basis and avoid the capital gains bill altogether.

“Many people don't consider their home as a capital asset that they have to pay tax on,” adds Liddiard. “And now, we're suddenly getting to the point where a whole generation is finding out from their accountant that if they sell their house, they’re going to have to pay $80,000 or $200,000 or whatever it might be in capital gains tax. And they're saying, ‘What? I had no idea!’”

For middle-income families, this creates a lose-lose situation: Either sell now and hand over a huge slice of your hard-earned profit, or hold the asset just to avoid a tax that many assumed they’d never owe in the first place. In the meantime, younger buyers lose out on homes that could otherwise hit the market, feeding an affordability crunch for everyone.

Penalized if you stay, penalized if you sell​

For longtime homeowners sitting on decades of appreciation, the prospect of selling and triggering a five- or six-figure tax bill often seems untenable. Some, as Liddiard explains, simply give up on using their whole house.

"We hear reports from some of our members saying some of these folks have moved to the main floor of their home, and they never go upstairs, never go downstairs, because they're too feeble to do so,” he says. “But they either can't afford to pay the capital gains tax, or they refuse to, because they know that when they die, the home can get a step up in basis [and] nobody has to pay the taxes."

“I’ve been working with a neighbor for more than a decade who refuses to sell his property—even though it could easily go for $600,000—because he doesn’t want to take the hit from Uncle Sam,” says Michelle Doherty, a Realtor® with RLAH Real Estate in Arlington, VA. “He’s a World War II veteran and the nicest guy in the world, but he always tells me, ‘I’ve given Uncle Sam enough.’ It’s a perfect example of how these outdated capital gains thresholds are keeping homes off the market.”

But staying put doesn’t always mean financial safety. In many areas, local property taxes have surged alongside home values, leaving older homeowners paying annual bills that now exceed what their mortgage once was. For people on fixed incomes, that adds another layer of pressure.

Some high-cost states offer protections like assessment caps to help longtime residents stay in their homes. But those protections often vanish upon sale. That means moving—even to a smaller home—resets the property tax rate and can wipe out any financial breathing room.

“Folks in California have been living with this problem probably longer than most other areas of the country,” says Liddiard. “They’ve got limits on how much the property [tax] can go up, but if they sell the house, that starts all over again.”

The result is a painful double bind. Middle-class homeowners who played by the rules—stayed in one place, paid off their mortgage, built equity—now find themselves stuck. And as more of those homes stay off the market, younger buyers feel the strain, too.

What’s next?​

Without action, this hidden tax is only set to grow. By 2035, projections show that 13 states could see at least 90% of homeowners exposed to federal capital gains taxation—including those that were once synonymous with low-cost, low-tax living like Florida, Nevada, and Arizona.

Industry advocates say the solution is straightforward. Update the exclusion limits to reflect how much home prices have climbed since 1997, and make sure those limits automatically adjust for inflation going forward. A bipartisan proposal in Congress, the More Homes on the Market Act, would roughly double the current exemption to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples, restoring the law’s original intent to protect everyday homeowners, not penalize them.

In the meantime, advocates are focused on educating homeowners about their tax risk.

“The more people know that this is coming, the more their voices can be heard,” says McGahn.
 
Senator Ted Cruz is once again chasing cheap talking points by blaming Democrats for the influence of big money in politics, when in reality, it’s the Republican Party that has consistently defended and benefited from it. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is absolutely right, since the disastrous Citizens United v. FEC ruling in 2010, our political system has been flooded with dark money, eroding public trust and corrupting democratic accountability.

Just look at the numbers, Elon Musk poured nearly $290 million into the 2024 election cycle, overwhelmingly backing Trump and GOP candidates. Miriam Adelson, widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, was another top donor, contributing $100 million to Trump’s campaign, not out of concern for domestic policy, but to advance a narrow foreign policy agenda centered on Israel. Her influence, like that of other mega-donors, is not rooted in the public interest but in personal and geopolitical priorities.

Let’s be clear: neither party is innocent. Democrats have their own big-money donors and super PACs, and corporate influence exists on both sides of the aisle. But the Republican Party has been particularly aggressive in resisting meaningful reform, and has consistently blocked efforts like the For the People Act, which would increase transparency and accountability in political donations.

If we truly care about democracy, we need to tackle all sources of dark money, no matter which side of the aisle it supports.


To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
There’s been a wave of Islamophobic rhetoric targeting Zohran Mamdani since his primary win, especially from far-right figures. Here are some of the most widely reported and disturbing examples:

Trump didn’t just attack Mamdani’s politics, he tore into his appearance, mocked his voice, dismissed his intelligence, and branded him a “100% Communist lunatic.” But in doing so, Trump wasn't only insulting Mamdani, he was effectively casting judgment on the voters of New York City, the very place he was born. By ridiculing Mamdani so harshly, he implied that the people who supported him must be blind, deaf, and foolish. No wonder New Yorkers don’t like him.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114745583467776157
@realDonaldTrump

It’s finally happened, the Democrats have crossed the line. Zohran Mamdani, a 100% Communist Lunatic, has just won the Dem Primary, and is on his way to becoming Mayor. We’ve had Radical Lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous. He looks TERRIBLE, his voice is grating, he’s not very smart, he’s got AOC+3, Dummies ALL, backing him, and even our Great Palestinian Senator, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, is groveling over him. Yes, this is a big moment in the History of our Country!


Charlie Kirk, “24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.” He also claimed Mamdani’s election was the first step toward implementing “Sharia Law” in the U.S.

Donald Trump Jr, echoed that sentiment, reposting a comment that said, “Old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it,” and added: “New York City has fallen.”

Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer with ties to Trump, went even further. She falsely claimed Mamdani was “literally supported by terrorists” and warned that “NYC is about to see 9/11 2.0.” She also suggested Trump should bar Mamdani from running and charge him criminally — without any legal basis.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted an AI-generated image of the Statue of Liberty in a black burka with the caption: “This hits hard.”

Rep. Nancy Mace shared a photo of Mamdani at an Eid service and wrote: “After 9/11 we said ‘Never Forget.’ I think we sadly have forgotten.”

Stephen Miller, Trump’s former advisor, posted: “NYC is the clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration.”

These attacks have little to do with Mamdani’s policies and everything to do with his Muslim identity and immigrant background. He’s condemned antisemitism and pledged to be a mayor for all New Yorkers, but that hasn’t stopped the flood of hate, including death threats and calls for Jewish residents to flee NYC.
 
Zohran can set the Obama-esque tone of “Hope and Change” and hopefully with the support of Brad Lander, a seasoned New York official, as comptroller, they can effectively navigate the political and human landscape of the city, towards a more affordable city.

There is a lot of nostalgia amongst many democrats for the era of Obama.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

You're right, Zohran Mamdani really does have that Obama-style flair. He speaks with a calm confidence, bold in vision, resonant in delivery. Watching his interviews and speeches, it’s hard not to feel the same sense of political electricity we saw during Obama’s 2007 campaign. And just like then, that charisma has brought both excitement and hostility, only this time, the backlash has a different face.

Obama faced racism, Mamdani is confronting Islamophobia. The criticism coming from many on the right isn’t about his housing policy or transit ideas. It’s personal. It’s about his identity. His Muslim faith is being weaponized against him by those who aren’t engaging with his ideas, just using fear to distract from them. Some far-right figures have gone so far as to suggest Mamdani’s candidacy is somehow connected to 9/11, a claim as inflammatory as it is baseless. Linking a Muslim political candidate in 2025 to the events of 2001 is not only inaccurate, it's dangerous, and it reflects the worst kind of scapegoating.

And then there’s the political machine working overtime to stop him. Billionaires like Bill Ackman and Daniel Loeb, who once funded Democratic campaigns, donated heavily to Andrew Cuomo in the primary and are now reportedly weighing whether to support Eric Adams or Republican Curtis Sliwa in the general election. They’re not alone. Michael Bloomberg, Barry Diller, and Reed Hastings are also rumored to be considering ways to block Mamdani’s rise. Their concern isn’t really about ideology, it’s about power, access, and keeping politics safe for the donor class.

Now, to be clear, I’m a moderate. I don’t usually find myself aligned with progressive candidates or their policies. But when someone receives such overwhelming support from New York City voters, that democratic choice deserves respect. Mamdani has clearly tapped into something powerful. I think he deserves the chance to lead, and to show the city what kind of policies he’s truly capable of delivering.
 
Demographic data on New York.

I see many Hindutuva supporting Indians say that Mamdani’s comments on Modi and Gujarat will cost him a big chuck of the vote. The Indian vote. But the Indian voters also vote on issues. So possibly half of the possible Indian votes (~40,000-45,000 possible voters (out of a pop of 76,000), so possibly 20,000 -25,000 voters may have been “lost” due to the Gujarat comments.)

Some Indian commentators also claim that Muslims don’t come out and vote. That had to change especially for this election.

Muslims have to mobilize for this election to push back on Islamophobia. Zohran’s detractors have made it about this issue. Not him. He wants to run on the issues.

Second, Bengali New Yorkers (104,000) nearly outnumbers Pakistanis (36,000) and Indians (76,000) combined.

Amongst the potential Black vote, nearly half are foreign born and if you count the first and possibly second generation, they probably outnumber “Foundational Black Americans”.

Nearly 40% of all New Yorkers are immigrants themselves.

Half of New Yorkers speak Spanish at home, and many if not most are immigrants or first or second gen.

Zohran has to keep building his coalition and make sure he gets out the vote on Election Day and in early voting.

The youth are getting their parents out to the polls. I did for my mom.



P.s. with Cuomo in the race and Adams, they will split the democrat vote, that Adams might have gotten in an Anti-Zohran effort. I’m hearing from African born Muslims they are also voting Zohran.

Tim Dillion gives an informed millennial comedian’s take on Zohran.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
That is the issue, market need stability, if we don't know what is going to be on July 9, no one is going to import anything to the US, because you can't import something that may jump in the middle of the month or maybe completely resolved by the end of the month, and you can't stabilise the market if it in itself is uncertain, and considering 90% of US consume are from overseas, that's a very big issue.
The outlook is only growing more uncertain. With the July 9th deadline looming, the EU has threatened retaliatory measures if the U.S. proceeds with the baseline 10% tariffs—while Trump has publicly floated rates as high as 50%. That’s not negotiation; it’s a threat aimed squarely at global supply chains.

On top of that, Trump abruptly ended all trade talks with Canada over its digital services tax, further isolating the U.S. on the international stage.

The consequences are already hitting home. Consumer confidence, which had shown signs of life last month, is sliding once again. Investor sentiment is deteriorating fast, with surveys signaling mounting pessimism. Revised GDP figures now show the economy contracted 0.5% more than previously estimated, starkly contrasting with the 2.4% growth recorded in Biden’s final quarter. Meanwhile, May’s core inflation increased more than expected, and both consumer spending and income are flashing warning signs of further weakening.

So yes, this is Trump’s economy, volatile, unpredictable, and increasingly disconnected from the global economic order. If this is the “art of the deal,” most Americans seem to be walking away from the table.
 
this is outrageous..the only thing this does is make people not want to sell..instead turning into slumlords...and exacerbating the housing shortage.

Homeowners Face a Stiff Penalty for Staying in Their Homes Too Long—a Hidden Home Equity Tax


Millions of American homeowners are sitting on a hidden tax burden they never planned for—one that threatens their hard-earned home equity and, at the same time, is tightening the nation's already strained housing supply.

Today, roughly 1 in 3 homeowners—nearly 29 million households—have built up more home equity than the federal capital gains tax exclusion for single filers protects when they sell their primary home, according to a recent analysis by the National Association of Realtors®. By 2030, that number is expected to grow to 56% of homeowners.

Most people don’t think of their home as a taxable investment. It’s their nest egg, future college fund, or inheritance for their kids. But an outdated federal rule, left unchanged since 1997, means the longer you stay and the more your home appreciates, the more likely the IRS will claim a cut when you finally sell

This home equity tax has big consequences. It erodes family wealth right when people need it most. It discourages older owners from downsizing or moving closer to care. And it keeps larger, family-sized homes off the market, fueling the inventory crunch that’s driving up prices for everyone.

Why the home equity tax exists​

The roots of this growing problem stretch to 1997, when Congress rewrote the rules for taxing homeowners’ profits from selling a primary residence. Before then, the process was complicated and frustrating: Sellers could defer paying capital gains taxes if they bought a more expensive home, but they had to keep decades of receipts and faced a tax hit if they ever wanted to downsize.

“It was a compliance mess,” says Evan Liddiard, the NAR's director of tax policy. “You had to keep track of the first home that you bought and every improvement in every home over the course of a lifetime to show how much gain you ultimately had.”

The 1997 change fixed that headache. It gave homeowners the freedom to exclude up to $250,000 in profit if single, or $500,000 if married and filing jointly, every time they sold a primary home with few strings attached.

The simplicity was key: For most people, the exclusion was so generous that meticulous record-keeping was no longer necessary—and it opened the door to using their home equity to help fund retirement, pay for medical care, or support their kids’ education.

But there was one major oversight: Congress never linked those exclusions to inflation, and now, homeowners are paying the price.

In the decades since, home prices have climbed more than 260%, while the tax exemption has stayed exactly the same. If it had kept pace, the cap would now be about $660,000 for individuals and $1.32 million for couples, according to research from the University of Illinois Chicago.

Who’s most exposed​

The financial shock isn’t spread evenly. While nearly 1 in 3 homeowners nationwide is already at risk of a surprise capital gains bill, those hit hardest are the owners who’ve stayed put the longest—especially in states where home values have soared the fastest.

Hawaii tops the list. About 79% of homeowners there could be affected by the $250,000 exclusion limit, with an average capital gain over the exclusion of more than $409,000 per household. Washington follows closely, with nearly 65% of owners at risk. By comparison, West Virginia and Mississippi see the least impact, with less than 8% of homeowners potentially exposed.

And the dollar impact is just as lopsided. Nationwide, the average potential federal tax bill for over-the-limit homeowners is about $35,000. But in Hawaii, the average homeowner who surpasses the single-filer cap has an additional $409,346 in gain at risk of taxation.

When considering the higher joint-filer exclusion, exposure remains significant: Nearly half of Hawaii’s homeowners and about 31% in California could get hit. In Wyoming, the average homeowner over the joint limit could see nearly a half-million dollars exposed to taxation—the highest in the nation.

e32edee2373062e6594e173c99bc9a1ew-c3731590295srd-w629_q80.jpg

These figures highlight a hard truth: Homeowners in the most competitive markets—the same places where first-time buyers already struggle—are sitting on equity they can’t unlock without paying a steep price, keeping homes off the market where supply is needed most.

The capital gains cliff: Real money, real pain​


For middle-class Americans, the real pain isn’t just the dollar figure, but the ripple effect on how families plan, retire, and pass down wealth.

Most homeowners built equity the old-fashioned way, by staying in place and paying down a mortgage over decades. But those who’ve followed this tried-and-true advice have now grown their equity so high that cashing in on it can seem more like a penalty than a reward.

“This really is a tax on home equity,” says Shannon McGahn, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer of the NAR. “And without that tax being indexed for inflation, it’s increasingly hitting the middle class and older homeowners harder than most.”

Instead of tapping that equity to age comfortably or assist the next generation, many owners now feel forced to keep it locked up until they pass away, because if they hold on to the house, heirs receive a stepped-up basis and avoid the capital gains bill altogether.

“Many people don't consider their home as a capital asset that they have to pay tax on,” adds Liddiard. “And now, we're suddenly getting to the point where a whole generation is finding out from their accountant that if they sell their house, they’re going to have to pay $80,000 or $200,000 or whatever it might be in capital gains tax. And they're saying, ‘What? I had no idea!’”

For middle-income families, this creates a lose-lose situation: Either sell now and hand over a huge slice of your hard-earned profit, or hold the asset just to avoid a tax that many assumed they’d never owe in the first place. In the meantime, younger buyers lose out on homes that could otherwise hit the market, feeding an affordability crunch for everyone.

Penalized if you stay, penalized if you sell​

For longtime homeowners sitting on decades of appreciation, the prospect of selling and triggering a five- or six-figure tax bill often seems untenable. Some, as Liddiard explains, simply give up on using their whole house.

"We hear reports from some of our members saying some of these folks have moved to the main floor of their home, and they never go upstairs, never go downstairs, because they're too feeble to do so,” he says. “But they either can't afford to pay the capital gains tax, or they refuse to, because they know that when they die, the home can get a step up in basis [and] nobody has to pay the taxes."

“I’ve been working with a neighbor for more than a decade who refuses to sell his property—even though it could easily go for $600,000—because he doesn’t want to take the hit from Uncle Sam,” says Michelle Doherty, a Realtor® with RLAH Real Estate in Arlington, VA. “He’s a World War II veteran and the nicest guy in the world, but he always tells me, ‘I’ve given Uncle Sam enough.’ It’s a perfect example of how these outdated capital gains thresholds are keeping homes off the market.”

But staying put doesn’t always mean financial safety. In many areas, local property taxes have surged alongside home values, leaving older homeowners paying annual bills that now exceed what their mortgage once was. For people on fixed incomes, that adds another layer of pressure.

Some high-cost states offer protections like assessment caps to help longtime residents stay in their homes. But those protections often vanish upon sale. That means moving—even to a smaller home—resets the property tax rate and can wipe out any financial breathing room.

“Folks in California have been living with this problem probably longer than most other areas of the country,” says Liddiard. “They’ve got limits on how much the property [tax] can go up, but if they sell the house, that starts all over again.”

The result is a painful double bind. Middle-class homeowners who played by the rules—stayed in one place, paid off their mortgage, built equity—now find themselves stuck. And as more of those homes stay off the market, younger buyers feel the strain, too.

What’s next?​

Without action, this hidden tax is only set to grow. By 2035, projections show that 13 states could see at least 90% of homeowners exposed to federal capital gains taxation—including those that were once synonymous with low-cost, low-tax living like Florida, Nevada, and Arizona.

Industry advocates say the solution is straightforward. Update the exclusion limits to reflect how much home prices have climbed since 1997, and make sure those limits automatically adjust for inflation going forward. A bipartisan proposal in Congress, the More Homes on the Market Act, would roughly double the current exemption to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples, restoring the law’s original intent to protect everyday homeowners, not penalize them.

In the meantime, advocates are focused on educating homeowners about their tax risk.

“The more people know that this is coming, the more their voices can be heard,” says McGahn.
I completely agree with you, it’s outrageous. As someone living in Washington state, I’ve felt the impact of this firsthand. That’s why I support the More Homes on the Market Act, a bipartisan bill introduced in February 2025. One of its sponsors, Suzan DelBene, is from my state, not my district, but someone I’ve supported and donated to because I believe this bill is a far better solution.

It proposes raising the capital gains exclusion on the sale of a primary residence from $250,000 to $500,000 for single filers, and from $500,000 to $1 million for joint filers, thresholds that haven’t been adjusted since 1997. By updating these outdated limits, the bill encourages homeowners to sell without being penalized for decades of appreciation, especially in high-cost states like ours. Instead of punishing people for aging in place, it opens up housing stock in a fair and sensible way.

That’s the kind of policy we need, one that addresses the housing shortage by promoting mobility and opportunity, not one that burdens long-term homeowners.
 
Here is an update on the tranny weather "it".

You don’t seem to like them, but to be honest, I find them really funny.

Here’s a clip of Rudy Giuliani dressed in drag. Trump calls him beautiful and kisses him.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I completely agree with you, it’s outrageous. As someone living in Washington state, I’ve felt the impact of this firsthand. That’s why I support the More Homes on the Market Act, a bipartisan bill introduced in February 2025. One of its sponsors, Suzan DelBene, is from my state, not my district, but someone I’ve supported and donated to because I believe this bill is a far better solution.

It proposes raising the capital gains exclusion on the sale of a primary residence from $250,000 to $500,000 for single filers, and from $500,000 to $1 million for joint filers, thresholds that haven’t been adjusted since 1997. By updating these outdated limits, the bill encourages homeowners to sell without being penalized for decades of appreciation, especially in high-cost states like ours. Instead of punishing people for aging in place, it opens up housing stock in a fair and sensible way.

That’s the kind of policy we need, one that addresses the housing shortage by promoting mobility and opportunity, not one that burdens long-term homeowners.

No..no..no...Woke Progressives will say "this only benefits racist white homeowners who built that equity on the backs of redlining". :rolleyes:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Pakistan Defence Latest

Back
Top